jbernier

First mistake. In orthodox Christian theology Christ is God. Thus there is no delegation of powers.

Second mistake. In orthodox Christian theology the devil is not to be equated with the power of death. In fact, the devil is to be seen as fundamentally power-less, in that he is a pretender to the throne.

Third mistake, compounding the first. Since God did not delegate power to God's Son one cannot identify a reason for his doing so. Moreover, the incarnation is not about the elimination of evil per se but rather about the revelation of God through the life of the Son. In fact, I would argue that orthodox Christianity does not have a concept of evil analogous to our contemporary concept of evil. We think of evil primarily as inappropriate acts or the intent to commit said acts; the intentional choice to commit the inappropriate act is the defining point of our concept of evil (hence our legal concept of mens rea, that is, criminal intent). However, orthodox Christianity locates evil in disordered desire borne from ignorant; it is not the acts that are said to be evil at all but rather the desires that give birth to the acts.

If we nuance this to say 'God the Father' then, yes, you are close to orthodox Christian theology on this point. What you fail to do, however, is get into the logic of why this is held to be the case.

You are missing an accurate description of orthodox Christian theology.

First off, 'theist' is a ludicrously homogenizing term. I don't know many Muslims or Jews who have a salvation theory that involves the crucifixion of Christ.

Now, what we need to ask is 'Why the crucifixion?' Before we can ask that, however, we need to ask 'Why the incarnation?' The reason for the incarnation traditionally held by orthodox Christian is given quite clearly in the four canonical gospels - perhaps most clearly in John, which is certainly the most overtly theological of the four. The primary reason for the incarnation was to reveal God and divine reality. Paul will take this further, arguing that through Christ the idols and the principalities and powers of this are shown to be power-less and disarmed. That is, now that God has come in the flesh the principalities and powers are shown to be what they are: pretenders to the throne.

Hence the crucifixion. In the crucifixion the powers reveal their true nature as pretenders to the throne. In order to maintain their control they had to kill an innocent man: the powers of this world, in the end, exist only by virtue of their own might. They work in a framework which says that 'might makes right.' However, the use of their might to kill an innocent man in order to maintain their own pretensions to power reveals that they are not, in fact, in control of their own domains; moreover, if an innocent man was threat enough to require his death then the principalities and powers of this world are shown to be even that more power-less. Their might does not make right; in fact, their might is at bit an illusion.

The point of the incarnation and crucifixion is not suffering per se. The point is that might does not make right. The New Testament locates Christ's worthiness to be called God not in his raw might or divine power per se but rather in his willingness to be humbled - to empty and humble himself, in the language of Phil. 2:5b-11. To the idea that 'might makes right,' the New Testament counters that 'the abandonment of might in service to others makes right.' The incarnation and crucifixion are not mere abstract metaphysics but, in fact, a politics - or, perhaps, a critique of all politics rooted in discourse of power and might.

jbernier

You won't find the idea anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures that Messiah is to save humanity from the curse that befell Adam and Eve. As an aside, that is the exact reason why it has never been a part of Rabbinic Jewish theology. Given that the idea does not exist in Jewish theology, it is simply untrue that this is a central idea in Judeo-Christian thought. Show me the proverbial money: back up your claim by citing one - just one example from the Hebrew scriptures where Messiah is said to redeem humanity from a curse that befell Adam and Eve. Just one. Good luck on that.

Even in the New Testament it gets very little air time - just a few verses at best. It is hardly a central tenet. You can only say that it is so if you assume that any other references to human sinfulness presuppose this position. In that case you are making a highly speculative assumption, albeit one that much of Christian theology has adopted. However, the mere fact that a good number of people have adopted said assumption does not make it correct. Either way, to assert categorically that one's assumption is correct is, really, to engage in dogmatics. Personally, I prefer the balanced consideration of evidence to dogmatic assertions - but I'm crazy that way.

Rational BAC

I think that canonical or orthodox Christianity is seriously overated.

And it is seriously difficult to defend. Posts on this thread do demonstrate that.

If you ask the average somewhat liberal mainstream Christian (and get very specific about it) if he really believes in orthodox Christianity?-------he would probably answer---- "not completely,--give or take some".

There truly is no Christian "orthodoxy"------that the vast number of Christians really accept on face value--when put to the test.

Jobar

RBAC, I've said many times that every believer has his or her own God, if you ask the right questions. It's been my (quite extensive!) experience that no two believers who have come to this board have given the same answers about such things as free will, sin, damnation, or the qualities and intentions of God. Answers so variant that we doubters can't see that the believers are talking about the same entity.

Re John 3:16- I've a question, or rather an interconnected series of them, that I think are very important. "...shall not perish..." I take that to mean "shall not be damned". After all, *physical* death is inescapeable for all (I'm ignoring the Rapture, here.)

Now, as I understand it, barring salvation through Christ, all are damned. (If not, then just why not? Why do we need Christ?)

The most common answer I've seen is that yes, all are damned without salvation- so my next step is, what for?

Again, the most common answer is for the Fall- Adam and Eve's disobedience. (If not, then whence sin, and thus the need for salvation (Christ)?)

I'm sure you know the final step in this dance. If there was no literal Adam and Eve who ate of the Tree of Knowledge, just how do you explain the origin of sin, and thus the need for Christ?

I've read that 'eating the fruit of Knowledge' is a metaphor for humans becoming intelligent; that if we were like animals, and unable to foresee and consider our own physical death, that we would be 'innocent' and thus in no need of 'salvation.' However, at that level of abstraction, all the supernatural elements of the Christian story fall away; sin, fruit, God, serpent, heaven, and hell all become abstract myths, which though they may actually be in some sense correct, in no way require faith or literal belief. Nor do, or can, they promise any sort of 'ever-lasting life' for the individual. (As per Joseph Campbell.)

Do any of you care to comment on this?

Rational BAC

Well, I do not have a great empathy for the OT-------so most of what you post is meaningless to me.

I think that Jesus was fibbing a bit when He said He did not come to change anything in the OT. (or possibly that part was a bit of an add-on much later on--and so there is really no fib)

Most obviously Jesus DID come to change things. And change things beaucoup

There is no original sin. What an absurd concept that is.

Clivedurdle

I was brought up to think similarly - these ideas are from Hebrews and the concept of our High Priest, the veil of the temple and similar ideas of the complete sacrifice.

Isn't there a verse about the smell of the burnt offerings being pleasing to God?

Hmmm roast Lamb of God with mint sauce!!!

Rational BAC

The OT does has some very excellent benefits as far as good literature--

But that is all there is to it. (possibly a very vague basis, but that is all there is to it)

Christianity is a whole nother thing. A completely different animal.

Read the OT and then read the NT (at least as far as the 4 gospels, forget that ding a ling Paul and scrap completely Revelation)-----------and you are realizing night from day.

no_rain

Are you willing to believe that Christ died for the sins we do commit then? Forget about original sin if your faith will fail on it. But I still believe it is a central concept that explains the Judeo/Christian faith.

Really, it was only when I came to this forum where I’ve discovered how contentious the concept of original sin was. It was always something I just took for granted until now. So is it an American thing or what? Is it that big a deal that, because of it, you are willing to make my posts fail?

So now I know how you people feel I will modify my argument: Christ died for the COUNTLESS sins we do commit.

I find it appalling that the people attacking my arguments are supposedly Christians. And I find it appalling they are willing to disregard my messages because of a simple concept.

EssEff

hahaha yummy!

I for one am glad that I don't have to sacrifice a chicken at the end of my menstrual cycle, but if we could just leave a bucket of KFC next to the fireplace that would work for me.

Columbus

I hope we're settling in for a nice long rambling talk. We obviously disagree about lot's of things. But I sincerely hope that we can communicate our own truth and not get all personal. I'm in no hurry, let's take our time.

So we both agree that some OT laws are not worth adhering to. We must re-evaluate moral codes constantly. Few, if anyone, still thinks that the second commandment still is worth bothering about. It made sense in a time and place where all "graven images" were images of God and Moses was trying to teach about an image of God that couldn't be portrayed. But that hasn't been true for millenia. Ancient moral codes, including Biblical ones, aren't followed because we know better than the authors of those codes.

When you say "I would agree" do you mean that you think some of what the OT says is not only wrong, but dangerously immoral? That's what I mean.

Few Christians would agree with your "a-list" of bad things. Most support abortion on demand, capital punishment, pre-emptive war, or some combination. I find myself in the ironic position of defending my"Pro-Life" stance as a principle to Christians quite commonly.
Biblical supporting statements are simply more unsupported assertions. They are ficticious statements made by anonymous authors attributed to ancient prophets, in my humble opinion. No-one has the first idea whether or not Moses or Jesus would agree with the statements made in their name. I don't think Paul knew as much about Jesus as I do. I realize that you believe differently about this than I do.
You didn't give any Philosophical support for your statements. You used the Philosophical definition of "retributive justice", but you didn't give any indication of why you think it is anything but an outmoded view that is now quite immoral.
The quotes that I used where some of the statements that I saw as unsupported assertions. You asserted that we have a sinful nature. That we have a built in sense of justice. That God sent His Son to Save us. Those are the unsupported assertions that I was referring to, although you made more.
I don't think it will be a hard sell at all. Not given most people's definition of self-preservation. Most people see justice as their own self-preservation. It doesn't matter what actually is the child's own. What matters is what the child believes should be.
Similarly, a person who believes that they are going to heaven can do anything that no-one can convince them is immoral. Once they believe they are "saved" they have no moral scruples, because they have no interest in anyone else's well-being. Just look at American Christian culture if you want evidence for this. Modern Christian culture encourages this kind of "I'm going to heaven, so I don't care much what happens to you" sort of thinking.
Deternined by Jesus and me and you. The NT does not support the law of Moses, even though someone quoted Jesus as saying differently. He contradicted specifics like divorce and dietary laws. He contradicted generalities like an eye for an eye. He contradicted fundamental theological concepts like "an angry and jealous God" and "rich people are rich because God likes them better". The law of Moses was not created to show us that we could not live sin free lives. It was created to show us that we could. It was much later Christian interpretations that suggested that we could not live sin free lives. This interpretation was created, by humans, to explain the contradictions between the theologies. It just so happened that this theology created political power for the creators of the interpretation.
You certainly don't have to accept anything simply because the words "that's all" are at the end of the sentence. But you could actually explain why you disagree with them.
When we are born we have instincts that lead to the pursuit of food and sex and tribal relationships, all of which lead to the evolutionary goal of procreation. Just like the great apes. As a result there are billions of us. We are not born with any similar instincts about justice or theology or aesthetics or any of the things that anyone thinks lead to a good life. We have to learn about all those. You can learn about any of my claims in any biology or psychology textbook.
You say "we should never take someone's mere opinion as fact". But then you quote the Bible as support for your beliefs. I see the Bible as "someone's mere opinion" because it contradicts itself so often. And I see your belief that the Bible is something other than useful fiction as your own "mere opinion". I don't take your opinion as fact.


I'll work my way through the rest of your esteemed post later. Maybe not before Thursday as it's a busy week at one of my favorite "volunteer opportunities". I shouldn't be up this late as it is. I hope you enjoy thinking through your beliefs and "trying your steel" as much as I do. For whatever reason, we're all here on this earth at this time together.

Tom